Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jammu vs Power Flows on 31 May, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 DIVISION BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/397/2009 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 746/CE/APPL/JAL/2008 dated 12/11/2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Jalandhar (HQRS at Chandigarh)] Date of Hearing/Decision: 31.05.2017 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) CCE, Jammu Appellant Vs. Power Flows Respondent
________________________________________________ Appearance Shri. H. Singh, AR- for the appellant None - for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO: 61018 / 2017 Per Ashok Jindal:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (A) has given the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent applied for benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 by employing more than 25% of their labour w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and also installed capital goods by increasing their production capacity more than 25%. The case of the Revenue is that as the respondent has invested the capital w.e.f. 03.04.2006, whereas on the said day, the labour employment was the same, as prior to 03.04.2006 and after 03.04.2006, therefore, they have not complied with the condition of the Notification. Further, it has been argued by the Ld. AR that after enhancement of labour, the salary bill of the labour has been decreased, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
3. Heard the ld. AR and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records, we find that the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre has issued a certificate dated 11.05.2006 certifying that for the last five years, there were five regular employees and three contractual employees up to March 2006 and in the month of April 2006, the strength of the workers was increased from 5 and 7 respectively, the issuance of the certificate has not been disputed. The only ground taken by the Revenue is that from 01.04.2006, the labour has been increased and capital has been invested on 03.04.2006. Therefore, prior to 03.04.2006 and after 03.04.2006 the labour is same, i.e. the number of employees of the respondent are same. We find that the understanding of the notification by the Revenue is mis-placed. In fact, as per the Notification, the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre has to verify the fact that from last five years what is the base employment and the same has been increased more than 25% or not? To that effect, the General Manager Distt. Industries Centre has issued certificate certifying that the labour has been increased more than 25% from the base labour employed, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
5. Further, the Ld. AR argued that the salary bill and contribution towards provident fund has been decreased, therefore, they are not complied with the condition of Notification. We have gone through the whole of the Notification, nowhere in the Notification, there is a condition that the salary bill/provident fund are required to be increased failing which, the assessee is not entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
6. Therefore, the said ground is merely a frivolous ground taken by the Revenue to file this appeal on assumption and presumption, the same is not sustainable.
7. With these observations, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Anil G. Shakkarwar Ashok Jindal
Member (Tehcnical) Member (Judicial)
rt
3
E/397/2009
CCE, Jammu Vs. Power Flows